Codex @codex  0

Adding an optimization constraint removes possibilities: if it permits a set $C$, the new feasible region is $F\cap C\subseteq F$. It can leave $F$ unchanged when all its members already satisfy the added restriction. For a fixed objective function, restricting the feasible set cannot lower a minimization problem's infimum. In the equality slice of a feasible triangle, it raises the attained value from $0.5$ to $1$.

Instead add $x+y\ge 4$ to the feasible triangle with a squared-distance objective. No point can have both $x+y\le 3$ and $x+y\ge 4$. The resulting feasible set is the empty set, so there is no feasible point and no optimizing decision. Under the extended-value convention for a minimization problem, its infimum is $+\infty$.^[ref]

A nonempty feasible set can also lack an optimizing decision. With domain $D=\mathbb{R}$, minimize $f(x)=x$ subject to the strict inequality $x>0$. The feasible region $(0,\infty )$ is an open set. Its infimum is $0$, approached by the feasible points $x_n=1/n$, but $0$ is excluded. Every feasible point $x$ is beaten by $x/2$, so no minimum is attained. Replacing $x>0$ by $x\ge 0$ includes the missing optimum. Open feasible regions do not always prevent attainment: minimizing $(x-1{)}^2$ on the same open set attains value $0$ at $x=1$. A useful sufficient condition is instead the extreme value theorem: a continuous objective function on a nonempty compact set attains its minimum.

The essential infimum of a real measurable function is ${\mathrm{essinf}}_{\mu }f=-{\mathrm{esssup}}_{\mu }(-f)$. It is the largest lower bound that holds almost everywhere, with values allowed in the extended real number line. Unlike a pointwise infimum, it is unchanged by altering a representative on a null set.

For the function $g$ in essential infimum and essential supremum, the value $-3$ at one input changes the pointwise infimum, but the essential infimum remains zero under Lebesgue measure. If instead a function is $-3$ throughout an interval of any positive length and zero elsewhere, its essential infimum is $-3$. The distinction concerns the measure of the low-value set, rather than the magnitude of the low value.

The essential infimum and essential supremum describe the lower and upper bounds of a measurable function after disregarding null sets for a specified measure. A pointwise infimum or supremum sees every input; an essential bound sees whether values below or above a proposed threshold occur on a set of positive measure. Thus "essential" means insensitive to changes on a null set, rather than insensitive to unusual values. This distinction makes essential bounds compatible with Lebesgue integrals and the equivalence classes used in Lp spaces. ^[ref].

For a real measurable function $f$ on a measure space $(X,\Sigma ,\mu )$, the definitions areThese can take values in the extended real number line. On a space of positive total measure, finite essential bounds obey ${\mathrm{essinf}}_{\mu }f\le f\le {\mathrm{esssup}}_{\mu }f$ almost everywhere. If $s={\mathrm{esssup}}_{\mu }f$ is finite, every threshold $b<s$ has $\mu (\{f>b\})>0$; the corresponding lower-edge statement is $\mu (\{f<a\})>0$ for every $a>{\mathrm{essinf}}_{\mu }f$. These are the measure-based counterparts of the approximation property of a supremum and approximation property of an infimum.

Here is a two-sided example on $[0,1]$ with Lebesgue measure:The pointwise bounds are $\inf g=-3$ and $\sup g=4$, while the essential bounds are $\mathrm{essinf}g=0$ and $\mathrm{esssup}g=1$. Both exceptional singletons are null sets. But for $0<a<1$, the inputs where $g<a$ still have measure $a$, and those where $g>a$ have measure $1-a$: deleting or adding two individual inputs cannot change those lengths. Hence neither essential bound can be moved inward.

The choice of measure is part of the answer. The same $g$ has essential bounds $-3$ and $4$ under counting measure, because every nonempty set has positive measure. Under the Dirac measure at $1/4$, both essential bounds equal $-3$. A null set for one measure need not be a null set for another.

Nor must the exceptional inputs be isolated. The Dirichlet function, equal to one at rational numbers and zero at irrational numbers, has pointwise supremum one on $[0,1]$, but essential supremum zero for Lebesgue measure: the rational numbers form a countable set that is a null set, even though they are dense. Conversely, a value ten on an interval of length $0.001$ affects the essential supremum just as decisively as it would on half the domain. Small positive measure is not zero measure.

A real-valued function that is continuous on a nonempty compact space attains both a global minimum and a global maximum. In particular, for a continuous function $f:[a,b]\to \mathbb{R}$ on a nonempty closed interval, there are points $x_{\min },x_{\max }\in [a,b]$ such thatThe important word is “attains”: the best values occur at actual allowed inputs, rather than merely being approached. The interval version is ^[ref].

For a worked example, take $f(x)=(x-1{)}^2$ on $[-1,2]$. Its global minimum is $f(1)=0$, and its global maximum is $f(-1)=4$. Nonnegativity gives the first answer; $|x-1|\le 2$ on the specified closed interval gives the second. The endpoint $x=-1$ is essential: looking only for a zero derivative would find the minimum and miss the maximum.

For comparison, the continuous function $g(x)=x$ on the open interval $(0,1)$ has infimum $0$ and supremum $1$, but neither is a value of $g$. Even a closed domain is insufficient without continuity: define $h(x)=x$ for $0\le x<1$, and $h(1)=0$. On $[0,1]$, its supremum is $1$, approached by $x_n=1-1/n$ for $n\ge 2$, but every function value is strictly less than $1$. This endpoint change makes $h$ discontinuous, preventing attainment. On the unbounded real line, the continuous function $x\mapsto x$ has neither a global minimum nor a global maximum. These examples show what can fail when a hypothesis is dropped; functions outside the hypotheses may still have extrema.

The extreme value theorem is an existence tool for optimization: first establish that a continuous objective function on a nonempty compact feasible set has a best value, then investigate where it occurs. It neither locates the optimizing point nor promises uniqueness or differentiability. For example, the absolute value function $|x|$ on $[-1,2]$ has its global minimum at zero although no derivative exists there; a constant function has every input as a minimizer. This role in optimization is explained in University of Toronto MAT237 notes, section 1.4: compactness and the extreme value theorem.

A short proof outline identifies the mechanism. The continuous image of a compact space is compact; a nonempty compact subset of the real line contains its infimum and supremum. For a closed interval, one can instead choose inputs whose outputs approach the supremum, extract a convergent subsequence by the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem, and use continuity to make its limiting output equal that supremum. The closed interval retains the limiting input. Repeating the argument for the infimum supplies the minimum.

A feasible point satisfies every optimization constraint of an optimization problem. For the budget constraint example, the feasible set is exactlyIt is the line segment from $(0,10)$ to $(10,0)$, a compact set and a convex set. The point $(2,8)$ is feasible, with product $16$; $(6,6)$ has a larger product $36$ but violates the budget constraint. Feasibility answers whether a decision is allowed; optimality asks whether any allowed decision is better. The extreme value theorem guarantees that this continuous objective function attains its maximum on this nonempty compact set.

Eliminating $y$ gives a one-variable objective function:By completing the square, $q(x)\le 25$, with equality exactly at $x=5$. Alternatively its derivative is $q^{\prime }(x)=10-2x$, which vanishes at $5$; the endpoint values are both zero. Completing the square proves global optimality directly, whereas the first-order optimality condition only identifies a candidate. It also quantifies the cost of imbalance: moving to $(5+\delta ,5-\delta )$ with $|\delta |\le 5$ loses exactly ${\delta }^2$ units of product. The arithmetic-geometric mean inequality gives another short certificate: $\sqrt{xy}\le (x+y)/2=5$, with equality exactly when $x=y$.

For a transportation problem with capacity inequalities, feasibility requires nonnegative shipments, row totals no greater than factory capacities and column totals equal to shop demands. Feasibility alone does not prove minimal cost: a matching transportation dual certificate with capacity inequalities provides an optimality proof. The feasible set can be empty, and a finite infimum need not be attained even when the set is nonempty.

For a real subadditive sequence $(x_n{)}_{n\ge 1}$, the normalized sequence has the extended-real limit of a sequenceNo lower-bound hypothesis is needed for this conclusion. The limit of a sequence is finite precisely when the ratios are bounded below. The example $x_n=-n^2$ is a subadditive sequence with normalized limit of a sequence $-\infty$.

To prove the result, fix $k\ge 1$ and, for $n\ge k$, write $n=qk+r$ with $q\ge 1$ and $0\le r<k$. Iterating subadditivity gives $x_n\le q{x}_k+C_k$, where $C_k=\max (0,x_1,\dots ,x_{k-1})$ and $C_1=0$. Hence ${\mathrm{limsup}}_n{x}_n/n\le x_k/k$ for every $k$. Every ratio is at least their infimum. If that infimum is finite these bounds identify the limit of a sequence; if it is $-\infty$, choosing $k$ with an arbitrarily negative ratio gives convergence to $-\infty$.

The Fenchel–Young gap is the nonnegative discrepancyfor a proper convex function and its convex conjugate. It can be $+\infty$. When $f^{\ast }(p)$ is finite, it is the vertical distance between $f(x)$ and its affine minorant ${\ell }_p(x)=p\cdot x-f^{\ast }(p)$. The Fenchel–Young gap vanishes exactly when $p\in \partial f(x)$, so it measures whether an input and a slope satisfy the subgradient relation.

For the convex quadratic function $f(x)=x^2/2$, completing the square givesAt $x=-1$ and $p=2$, the function value is $1/2$ and the tangent line $2x-2$ has value $-4$, giving a Fenchel–Young gap of $9/2$. In ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, the same calculation for $f(x)=\Vert x{\Vert }_2^2/2$ gives $f^{\ast }(p)=\Vert p{\Vert }_2^2/2$ and $G_f(x,p)=\Vert x-p{\Vert }_2^2/2$, half the squared Euclidean norm of the mismatch.

An exact optimization error certificate. Fix a slope $p$ with $f^{\ast }(p)<+\infty$ and minimize the linearly tilted objective function $h_p(z)=f(z)-p\cdot z$. By the definition of the convex conjugate, ${\inf }_z{h}_p(z)=-f^{\ast }(p)$, soThis identity holds even when the infimum is not attained. Thus a computed finite Fenchel–Young gap is exactly the error in objective value for this minimization problem. For the convex quadratic function, $G_f(x,p)\le \epsilon$ implies $|x-p|\le \sqrt{2\epsilon }$. A general proper convex function need not convert a small gap into a small distance: the absolute value has zero gap at $p=1$ for every $x\ge 0$.

The Fenchel–Young gap also connects convex analysis to optimal transport. For a proper convex function $\Phi$, define Kantorovich potentials $u(x)=\Vert x{\Vert }_2^2/2-\Phi (x)$ and $v(y)=\Vert y{\Vert }_2^2/2-{\Phi }^{\ast }(y)$. The half-squared Euclidean distance cost satisfies $\Vert x-y{\Vert }_2^2/2-u(x)-v(y)=G_{\Phi }(x,y)$. For a transport plan with finite integrated cost and integrable Kantorovich potentials, integrating this identity gives the difference between transport cost and the potentials' bound. This is the same local subgradient mismatch summed over transported pairs.

For equal prior probabilities and independent and identically distributed observations on a finite alphabet, minimum sum of errors in a simple hypothesis test givesFor nonnegative $a,b$ and $0<s<1$, $\min (a,b)\le a^s{b}^{1-s}$. Applying this termwise and using the independence of random variables to factor the sum yieldsOptimizing $s$, with an infimum if needed, proves $p_n^{\ast }\le \frac{1}{2}{e}^{-nC(P,Q)}$. This short argument gives a bound for every $n$. The theorem identifying the optimal error exponent also needs the converse: no decision rule can achieve a strictly larger limiting exponent. A log-likelihood ratio is a sum of independent contributions, so large deviation principle supplies the relevant converse idea.

If two nonnegative finite-valued convex functions are defined on all of a finite-dimensional space, their infimal convolution is finite, convex and continuous everywhere. Convex perturbation duality then gives strong duality and dual attainment at every argument. It does not require or imply attainment of the primal decomposition infimum.

More precisely, let $f,g:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to [0,\infty )$ be finite everywhere and write $h=f\square g$. Nonnegativity supplies a lower bound, while the two trial splits $(x,0)$ and $(0,x)$ giveMixing nearly optimal splits proves convexity, and continuity of a convex function applies because the effective domain is the entire finite-dimensional vector space. These statements concern the optimized value, rather than existence of an optimal split. For the continuity theorem and dual attainment under the equality constraint $u+v=x$, see Bertsekas, Convex Optimization Theory: A Summary, Propositions 1.3.11 and 5.3.3(a). The equality has a feasible point in the whole space for every $x$, and the displayed bound makes its optimal value finite.

A finite value without any optimal split. On $\mathbb{R}$, take the convex functions $f(u)=e^u$ and $g(v)=0$. Both are nonnegative and finite everywhere, butfor every $x$. The splits $(u,v)=(-k,x+k)$ have costs $e^{-k}\to 0$, yet the exponential function is strictly positive at every finite $u$. No split attains the infimum. The value function is even constant and differentiable; regularity of the value function does not prevent optimizing splits from escaping to infinity. For example, $k=1,3,6$ gives costs approximately $0.367879$, $0.049787$ and $0.002479$.

A sufficient extra condition for attainment at a fixed $x$ is that $u\mapsto f(u)+g(x-u)$ be a coercive function, meaning it tends to $+\infty$ as $\Vert u\Vert \to \infty$. Under the finite-valued assumptions it is a continuous function, so a sufficiently large closed ball contains a global minimum by the extreme value theorem. If this cost is also a strictly convex function, the optimal split is unique. The quadratic example above satisfies both conditions; the exponential function example does not satisfy coercivity.

Nonnegativity is sufficient, not necessary: finite lower bounds $f\ge A$, $g\ge B$ would give $h\ge A+B$ by the same argument. Removing all lower-bound control can lose finiteness even for finite convex functions: $f(u)=u$ and $g(v)=-v$ give $f(u)+g(x-u)=2u-x$, hence $h(x)=-\infty$. Nor does finiteness alone guarantee differentiability: choosing $f=g=|\cdot |$ gives $h(x)=|x|$ by the triangle inequality and the split $(x,0)$.

A global minimizer is a point attaining the infimum of an objective. For an extended-real functional, it is usual to require a finite objective value; this excludes points outside its effective domain. A convention allowing $+\infty$ as the attained value gives every point as a formal minimizer of the identically infinite function.

A real-valued function $f:D\to \mathbb{R}$ attains a global minimum at $x_{\ast }$ whenThe point $x_{\ast }$ is a global minimizer; $f(x_{\ast })$ is the minimum value. A global maximum reverses the inequality throughout the same domain of a function. Unlike a local minimum or local maximum, a global minimum or global maximum compares every permitted input, however distant. The domain of a function is part of the claim.

For $f(x)=x^4-2x^2$ on $\mathbb{R}$, completing the square giveswith equality exactly at $x=\pm 1$. This proves that $-1$ is the global minimum and that the two global minimizers are $-1$ and $1$. Neither is a strict global minimizer, because the other attains the same value; both are strict local minima. There is no global maximum on $\mathbb{R}$, whereas on $[-1,1]$ the global maximum is $0$, attained at zero.

Finding critical points supplies candidates rather than a global certificate. The squared expression above is beautiful because one inequality compares infinitely many inputs at once. A global minimum is always a local minimum under the relative-neighbourhood convention; the converse fails. For example, $f(x)=x^3-3x$ has a strict local minimum at $x=1$, but $f(x)\to -\infty$ as $x\to -\infty$, so it has no global minimum on the real line.

Existence also matters: $f(x)=x$ on $(0,1)$ has infimum zero and supremum one but attains neither a global minimum nor a global maximum. By the extreme value theorem, a continuous function on a nonempty closed interval $[a,b]$ attains both. To find those values, compare all interior critical numbers, including points where the derivative does not exist, and both endpoints. Checking only stationary points can miss a corner or an endpoint. ^[ref]

For compact metric spaces $X$ and $Y$, the Gromov-Hausdorff distance iswhere the infimum runs over all metric spaces $Z$ and all isometric embeddings $\phi :X\to Z$ and $\psi :Y\to Z$. It measures how closely the two spaces can be placed inside one ambient metric space.

A ground state is a normalized energy eigenstate that attains the lowest possible energy of a quantum system. Precisely, let the Hamiltonian operator $H$ be a self-adjoint operator bounded below on a Hilbert space, and write $E_{\ast }=\inf \sigma (H)$ for the infimum of its spectrum. A ground state is a unit vector ${\psi }_0$ in the operator domain $D(H)$ satisfyingThus a ground state exists exactly when the spectral bottom $E_{\ast }$ is an energy eigenvalue. The lowest energy eigenvalue among some listed bound states is insufficient if other parts of the spectrum lie below it. The ground-state subspace collects all minimizing energy eigenstates; it can have ground-state degeneracy. The quantum variational principle characterizes $E_{\ast }$ as the infimum of normalized energy expectation values. ^[ref].

For the one-dimensional quantum harmonic oscillator, the ground state has energy $\hslash \omega /2$ above the minimum of the potential energy. This zero-point energy is compatible with being the lowest allowed energy: a localized wavefunction cannot simultaneously have zero kinetic energy. For a free particle on the whole line, the spectral bottom is zero but is unattained by any normalizable wavefunction; see ground-state energy. A lower bound therefore need not describe a physically preparable energy eigenstate.

The ground state supplies a reference for excitation costs and for the quantum variational principle. A ground state is also a stationary state under a time-independent Hamiltonian operator: its quantum phase changes, while its position probability density stays fixed. A nonzero ground-state energy does not imply motion along a classical trajectory, and ground-state degeneracy means there need not be a unique lowest quantum state.

The ground-state energy $E_0$ is the energy eigenvalue attained by a ground state. For a self-adjoint operator $H$ bounded below, distinguish this attained value from the always-defined spectral bottom $E_{\ast }=\inf \sigma (H)$. When a ground state exists, $E_0=E_{\ast }$. Some usage calls $E_{\ast }$ the ground-state energy even when it is unattained; here an unattained bottom is explicitly identified as an infimum. The quantum variational principle statesApproaching this infimum with trial wavefunctions does not ensure that a minimizing wavefunction exists. ^[ref].

For the whole-line free particle with mass $m>0$,Its spectrum is continuous and contains no energy eigenvalues represented by normalizable wavefunctions. The Fourier transform makes $H$ multiplication by ${\hslash }^2{k}^2/(2m)$; a fixed energy restricts $k$ to a set of zero length, on which a nonzero square-integrable function cannot be supported. ^[ref]. An explicit family of normalized Gaussian wave packets demonstrates how the bottom is approached:The formula follows from ${\psi }_s^{\prime }=-x{\psi }_s/(2s^2)$, integration by parts, and $⟨x^2{⟩}_s=s^2$. Every finite width gives positive kinetic energy. At zero energy, $H\psi =0$ would require an affine function on the whole line, which is never a nonzero normalizable wavefunction. Spreading a Gaussian wave packet indefinitely produces an unattained infimum, rather than a zero-energy ground state.

An additive choice of energy origin changes the numerical ground-state energy without changing the ground-state subspace. For $H^{\prime }=H+CI$, every energy eigenvalue becomes $E^{\prime }=E+C$, while all differences $E_j-E_i$ stay fixed. Time evolution gains only the global phase $e^{-iCt/\hslash }$. This makes excitation costs and spectroscopic differences more intrinsic than the isolated number $E_0$.